::As for you original contributions: I came to the conviction that you don't defend them at the talk-page as they cannot be substantiated in any way. So they only resort (instead of arguing their physical or mathematical merits) is to crowbar them into the article via your edit war - a war you'll win not by having the better arguments, but by abusing your powers. In my opinion that is very sad... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:37, 28 February 2013 (EST)

::As for you original contributions: I came to the conviction that you don't defend them at the talk-page as they cannot be substantiated in any way. So they only resort (instead of arguing their physical or mathematical merits) is to crowbar them into the article via your edit war - a war you'll win not by having the better arguments, but by abusing your powers. In my opinion that is very sad... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:37, 28 February 2013 (EST)

This page continues to be visited by the public, and it draws traffic from websites that uses the page to ridicule Conservapedia as a whole. I think the best approach is to fix the E=mc<sup>2</sup> article and move the criticism of the theory of general relativity to a less visible and more appropriate page. I understand that Andy has concerns about general relativity, but they do not belong on this page. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

This page continues to be visited by the public, and it draws traffic from websites that uses the page to ridicule Conservapedia as a whole. I think the best approach is to fix the E=mc<sup>2</sup> article and move the criticism of the theory of general relativity to a less visible and more appropriate page. I understand that Andy has concerns about general relativity, but they do not belong on this page. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

+

+

===Choosing ignorance over knowledge===

+

+

Andrew Schlafly, you haven't answered to any suggestion made to [[Talk:E=mc²]] since Feb 11, 2013. Your only action is to revert edits made to [[E=mc²]]. Your behavior is disappointing, you don't defend your ideas, you conserve the current state of the article just by ''fiat'', thereby cementing the appearance of ignorance and idiocy which was summarized in the net under '''Conservapedia - where intelligence goes to die'''.

+

+

Ignoring those who want to improve the article and refusing to discuss your ideas is such a cowardly move that I never expected it from you: you are reminding me of a toddler who hides under his blanket, waiting for reality to go away...

+

+

This tactic may even work in the short range: your critics may get frustrated, editors like I become disillusioned and will edit less and less, someone else will say something even more stupid somewhere in the net and will divert the attention from this article, etc. But unfortunately for you, reality is there to stay...

A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton

I'd appreciate an answer by Aschlafly (and him alone) to the following questions:

1. Do you accept that the mass of the Lithium-kernel (7Li), of alpha-particles (4He) and of protons (1H) can be measured fairly accurately, as these are charged particles?

2. Do you accept the measurements for the mass of the particles as used by Cockcroft¹ and Walton, i.e.

particle

mass

1H

1.0072 amu

4He

4.0011 amu

7Li

7.0130 amu

If not, which values do you think to be right?

3. Do you agree that before the reaction the mass of the particles involved was 8.0202 amu?

4. Do you agree that after the reaction the mass of the particles involved is 8.00220 amu?

5. Do you agree that there is a mass decrease of 0.0180 amu?

6. Before the experiment, the Li was at rest and the proton had a kinetic energy of less than 1MeV. Do you accept these values?

7. After the experiment, a pair of alpha-particles was observed, both having an kinetic energy of 8.6MeV. Do you think that this value is correct?

8. Can you tell me where the mass went? Can you tell me where the energy came from?

9. If your answer to question 8. is no in both accounts, than my answer is that there is a theory which explains the conversion of mass to energy, even if you don't like it!

As this theory works for this experiment, and for all the other fissions and fusions, it isn't liberal claptrap, but a meaningful theory. And you can't blame physicists for using it! Of course, you can blame journalist to abuse the formula - but this isn't the result of liberal physics, but of bad reporting, as an abuse of the dictum 1+1=2 doesn't reflect badly on number-theorists, but only on the person misattributing it.

AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that E=mc2. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--Andy Schlafly 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

Aschlafly, you haven't answered any of the questions above! Instead you are talking about something completely different:

We are not talking about a chemical reaction! You should know the difference.

Cockcroft¹ claims that the energy comes from the loss of mass - and he calculates it according to E=mc². Please read (and understand!) his lecture.

Please give a list of a few (or at least a single) experiment which contradicts the formula. This should be easy, as you stated that Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula. Oh, wait, you made that up...

Please answer the questions 1 to 9: all the question are covered in Cockcroft's¹ lecture, so I'd be interested in your explanation!

A little clarification?

Mr. Schlafly, I'm trying to understand your assertion that the "energy" of an object is a function of "electrostatics." I wonder if you can explain a little more about this.

For example, how is energy derived from electrostatic charge? Can you show the equation for doing this?

Are you basing this on the common practice of expressing energy in electron-volts?

Do neutral particles such as neutrons or uncharged atoms have energy, even though they have no charge?
Pscott 21:54, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

Energy can be viewed as the ability to do work, as in applying a force. Electrostatic charge can certainly do that.

Mass applies, at most, a very weak force, and it has no connection with the speed of light squared. It's almost comical to claim that any meaningful statement of energy is found by multiplying mass times the speed of light squared.--Andy Schlafly 22:28, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

Unfortunately this doesn't really answer any of my questions. Yes, an electric field can apply a force. But the "strength" of an electric field is actually the same as a gravitational field: both decrease inversely as the square of the radius. The difference is that the strength of an electric field increases much more rapidly in proportion to charge than gravity does in proportion to mass.

Also, electric fields exert a force only on charged particles, which why I asked how we can calculate the energy of uncharged particles such as neutrons. Do they even have energy in the sense that you mean it?

And finally, I would still like to see the equations used to calculate the energy of a particle based on electrostatic charge. How much energy does an electron have? Is it the same as the energy of a proton (the charge is equal but opposite, but the mass is greater)?Pscott 15:05, 16 August 2012 (EDT)

Why is it preposterous to claim that if one gains a pound in weight then their energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared, but not preposterous to claim that if one gains a pound in weight then their kinetic energy has thereby increased in proportion to their speed squared? Occultations 16:53, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

"E=mc2 does expressly purport to relate all matter to light"

Mr. Schlafly, could you please explain this statement? It appears that this is a misunderstanding of the relationship of the mass-energy equivalence embodied by the equation . If a math student were to lambast the formula for the surface area of a sphere () as relating roundness to the number 4 or spheres to squares, they would rightly be criticized for this obvious misunderstanding of a mathematical formula. I think your misunderstanding of what means is similar. GregG 19:00, 11 November 2012 (EST)

The surface area of a sphere is related to its radius, and to . But the claim that mass and the speed of light have any relation at all to each other, through energy or anything else, is absurd.--Andy Schlafly 23:21, 11 November 2012 (EST)

Is your concern that the constant "c" happens to be the speed of light? Or do you dispute the concept of relativistic mass, where

Are you saying that the speed of light does not belong in either equation, and that the "c" should be something else? There are a number of equations in Einstein's Special Theory besides E=mc2 and they hold together as far as they go. Everyone agrees that a general theory of relativity has not been developed, but the ideas of mass energy equivalence and relativistic mass fit the data. The designers of nuclear reactors and satellite systems use these equations with success. Wschact 09:47, 12 November 2012 (EST)

It's a liberal fiction that E=mc2 has ever been applied in any practical way. The equation defines rest mass in terms of the speed of light - an absurdity.--Andy Schlafly 10:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)

With all due respect, relativity was factored into the design of the GPS satellite system. If you want to calculate the energy release of an atomic bomb, E=mc2 is very useful. We don't know with great precision the speed of light, and we don't know with great precision the value of "c". But God gave us brains and curiosity, so we will learn more precise values for both. So far, they match. If someday in the future, someone calculates "c" and measures the speed of light to more decimal places and discovers that they are different, I will have an open mind as to why. The constant "c" carries through consistently in Einstein's calculations for the Special Theory. The coincidence that "c" happens to equal the speed of light is one of the beautiful things about God's universe. Although I do not spend my life's work on theoretical physics, I am pleased that God has inspired some very smart people to devote their lives to thinking about relativity, and I wish them success and happiness. Wschact 11:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Relativity was not factored into the GPS design, and E=mc2 has never been useful in any other way.

We've discussed the claim about relativity and GPS over and over on this site, and as a matter of historical fact (not to mention obvious engineering efficiency), theoretical relativity was not part of its design. It is far easier and more accurate simply to synchronize directly based on observation, as may be needed.--Andy Schlafly 11:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Andy, why don't you answer August's question? What happens to that lost mass? And how do you explain E=mc 2 accounting for it exactly? The truth is that you live in a dream world. Your "insights" may sound like a nice way to view the world but when faced with a REAL counterexample and asked to back up your assertions you always just hide your head in the sand and fail to respond. Or use your classic 2+2=4 argument. Lol.--DamonRoss 12:23, 12 November 2012 (EST)

The equation does not define rest mass in terms of the speed of light. The equation defines relativistic mass in terms of the speed of light. If the equation were to define rest mass in terms of the speed of light it would have rest mass on the opposite side of the equation to the speed of light. Is your objection down to a fundamental flaw in your understanding of how equations work? VictorA 08:03, 14 November 2012 (EST)

Still waiting for an answer....

In March 2012 I asked this question:

Aschlafly, two protons (1.0073amu) and two neutrons (1.0087amu) have a combined mass of 4.0320 amu. An alpha-particle - existing from two protons and two neutrons - has a mass of 4.0015 amu. How do you explain this diminution of mass?

I'm still waiting for an answer! --AugustO 08:55, 12 November 2012 (EST)

It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. There has been no Nobel Prize awarded for it, for example, and there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation.

But a broken clock is correct twice a day. Would someone claim that proves the clock is working??--Andy Schlafly 20:21, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Of course not. A clock that goes backwards is correct 4 times a day. No-one would suggest that that makes it even better.--Occultations 21:52, 30 January 2013 (EST)

Do you say that the size of the diminution of mass just "happens" to coincide with the observed energy calculated via E=mc²?

But how can there be a loss of mass? If you don't think that the energy-mass-equivalence is valid, what's about conservation of mass?

Your "answer" is as good as a link to a video of fluffy kittens - or some proverb written in Chinese. In short, it is no answer at all, as you don't explain the diminution of mass.

"It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. " That's just not true, I'm afraid.

I know a number of physicists who are good conservatives and good Christians. They take their children to Sunday school. They don't like seeing government wasting money. And they believe in Einstein's theory of special relativity. At one time, the Roman Catholic Church taught that the Earth was the center of the solar system rather than the Sun. I personally believe that the Church's view on that subject did not have a reliable source in the Bible. I understand how the Book of Genesis has been viewed as being in tension with Darwin's theory of evolution, but I don't see special relativity having the same tension with the Bible.

The question is whether the contradiction between the Bible and the equation E=mc2 is so direct and widely acknowledged that CP's users should receive an article that disparages the equation? Thanks, Wschact 09:32, 14 November 2012 (EST)

Problematic edit

This edit is a bit vexing and does not reflect the consensus reached on the talk page. I understand the criticism directed toward the General Theory of Relativity, but for the reasons stated further down the article, E=mc2 does fit the experimental data. Based on everything that I have read, it is consistent with the Bible. I do not want to get into the middle of a pre-existing emotional dispute, but I thought that I had come up with language that fit both sides. CP is short on editorial manpower, and all of our time is very valuable. I am disappointed on how this was handled. Many thanks, Wschact 09:46, 15 November 2012 (EST)

Perhaps we could separate the experimental results from the general validity of E=mc2. I was thinking of something like:

Some experimental results appear to show that when a small amount of mass is lost in a nuclear reaction there is an accompanying release of energy (approx x eV per amu of mass lost).

Sorry I can't calculate x, but it can be just a number without any c, light speed etc

The conversion factor (x) is indeed close to the square of the speed of light if appropriate units are used. However:

The experiement has been done with only a limited number of nuclear reactions and in specific environments. This does not prove that this will occur for every nuclear reaction in every environment, and cannot possibly prove that E=mc2 is always true

I'm assuming here that we accept the experiemental results as far as they go. If not, even better - we can link to some evidence that they are flawed

The experimental results do not prove that the conversion factor (x) is exactly the square of the speed of light. More accurate measurements may show that it is different

No one has a convincing explanation of why E might possibly equal mc2. The most likely explanation is that the Creator designed it this way for some reason that we don't understand.

No Nobel Prize has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred. There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula. It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.--Andy Schlafly 15:52, 8 January 2013 (EST)

No Nobel Prize has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred. That's just a non sequitur

There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula. Why should there by? It works!

Actually, it gets demonstrated in practice about 3x1010 times for every watt-second of power generated by a nuclear power plant. Aside from observation, the theoretical question of why it should be true (and why the proportionality constant must be c2) was logically deduced, by Poincare, Einstein, and perhaps others (Roger Schlafly would be an expert on this point), before it was ever observed. The last paragraph of Einstein's 1905 paper, after deducing it theoretically, speculated that it might actually be observed in Radium decay. It was, and the rest is history.

Clear expositions of why it must be true on theoretical grounds are not always easy to come by. I like to think that the page I wrote on another wiki gives a clear and concise proof. Anyone interested in my making it available here? SamHB 23:06, 8 January 2013 (EST)

I know that Albert Einstein won the 1921 Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect, and that no prizes were awarded during World War II. But didn't E=mc2 show up a lot in the work of Hans Bethe on nuclear reactions and energy production in stars (1967 prize). Hans Bethe lead the theoretical team at Los Alamos which designed the bombs dropped on Japan and certainly used the relationship on a day to day basis. So, I don't believe it is correct to say that "No Nobel Prize has been given for this implausible formula." I think that so many Nobel Prize winning discoveries in high energy physics depend on E=mc2 or further confirm the relationship that it would be hard to argue that the Nobel committee has been boycotting E=mc2 as pseudoscience. Wschact 05:46, 9 January 2013 (EST)

@SamHB: Having performed such an experiment for yourself is much more impressive than just thinking about actions in nuclear power plants or stars far away. Such an experiment inoculates you against arguments which are b|ased on wishful thinking alone.

@Wschact: the formula E=mc² is virtually omnipresent: I've shown above that Cockcroft used the formula in his Nobel-lecture. Aschlafly tends to ignore such information.

Broken clocks are precisely correct twice a day too. One or two bizarre experiments in more than a century of trying to prove the formula as a general proposition are hardly persuasive. The Nobel Prize committee wants to recognize the formula has being demonstrated, but can't. There is no logical support for the formula, as peer reviewed articles have virtually admitted.--Andy Schlafly 14:11, 9 January 2013 (EST)

The experiment for the undergraduates is hardly bizarre - what results would you expect? If you don't get the results as described, this means that your clock is broken, while the clock which most of us use is correct uncountable times a day. And please, could you give the answers to #A_few_questions_for_Aschlafly_regarding_the_experiment_of_Cockcroft.C2.B9_and_Walton? This is another non-bizarre and often repeated experiment... --AugustO 14:25, 9 January 2013 (EST)

[Sorry, I think I put this in the wrong place originally]. It's certainly a strange-looking formula. When refuting it should I be saying that mass is not actually being converted to energy in these reactions (i.e. the experiments are flawed and either mass is not being lost or the energy comes from somewhere else or something)? Or is it that mass is indeed being converted to energy but E=mc2 is not a correct/meaningful/useful way to describe it? Peterw 15:06, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Thank you Peterw. Clearly, energy is converted from matter. Just consider the energy source of hydrogen bombs and the Sun. Does anyone object to reverting the edit cited at the top of this section? Thanks, Wschact 23:04, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Mass is not a function of the speed of light. A century of effort (and billions of taxpayer dollars) to try to connect the two has struck out. Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed.--Andy Schlafly 23:40, 9 January 2013 (EST)

We are not talking about chemical reactions - that's just a diversion, showing a lack of understanding of the processes involved. We are talking about energies much greater than those involved in a chemical reaction! May I refer you to one of my comments above which you ignored earlier:

The mass of the products of a chemical reaction is nearly equal to the mass of the reagents, because the energy which is involved is so much less than that of a nuclear fusion or fission.

A kilogram of TNT will release 4.484 MJ of energy, if you break this down for a single molecule, you see that less than 10 eV are released per molecule in the explosion. Compare this with the 17,200,000 eV per nucleus in the experiment of Corckcroft and Walton!

In fact, if you let the products of the explosion cool down, the equivalent of this energy will be missing - but it is such a small amount that it is hard to detect it. But nevertheless, E=mc² could be observed.

High School Experiment

August, please explain below any high school experiment that you think proves the formula. You might your view why a Nobel Prize was not given for it.--Andy Schlafly 14:36, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Aschlafly, you are a former engineer, therefore you should have the competence to review an experiment for undergraduates!

Not everything which is true can be shown at a high-school. You may say that in this case, the theory is beyond the scope of this project, but that is not the case: certainly the readers of this encyclopedia should be informed about such things, even if they can't do the maths themselves - or perform the experiments. This demands of the editors of articles like this one that they are willing to get the knowledge of the subject! Indeed they should get more information than is put into the article at the end. A good teacher should know a little bit more than the curriculum of his pupils...

What's the relevance of the Nobel Prize? Was a Nobel Prize ever given for Intelligent Design, Flood Geology, Baraminolgy, anti-vaccine experiments, the link between breast cancer and abortion or creation science? MattyD 15:00, 9 January 2013 (EST)

As to why no Nobel Prize was given for it, I believe that the main factor was that Albert Einstein had already received the prize for his related work and since the prize was so new, there was a great reluctance to give it to the same person twice. There are a number of other Nobel Prizes awarded for related work that involve E=mc2 such as Hans Bethe's explanation of how energy is generated inside the Sun. Turning to the experimental side, there was a Nobel Prize given to John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton. While a high school student does not have the instrumentation sensitive enough to recreate that experiment, you could take high schools students to an "atom smasher" facility for a tour. For example, Fermilab outside Chicago has an excellent visitor's center which has a number of exhibits and demonstrations suitable for high school (and younger) students. The models help visualize the various aspects of atomic (and subatomic) interactions.

One interesting calculation is to give high school students the size of a hydrogen bomb and ask them to calculate the amount of energy that will be released when the bomb detonates. (I certainly would not want that experiment to be conducted for real at my high school.) I hope this helps, and if so, perhaps some of the materials from the talk page can be incorporated into the main article. Wschact 15:10, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Wschact, I agree with you on the matter of the Nobel Prize

The calculation is interesting, but it is impossible to prove its validity: the mass-defect simply can't be measured... --AugustO 17:19, 9 January 2013 (EST)

The significance of no Nobel Prize for this is the same as the significance of the dog that didn't bark: dogs want to bark, and the Nobel Prize committee wants to honor atheistic, nonsensical theories like relativity, but there is nothing there, there.--Andy Schlafly 17:24, 9 January 2013 (EST)

That's your opinion. Wschact offered another explanation. We could talk about this all day without getting closer to the truth - so let's get on more solid ground:

I agree with AugustO's comments as well. If Andy could respond to those questions, we will know how to proceed to fix up this article and to write others. For example, if E does not equal mc2, what can we say in the Hans Bethe article about his contributions? How can we discuss synchrotrons? Why does it take more energy to push a particle as the speed of the particle approaches c? I understand the controversy on this website about evolution vs. creation vs. intelligent design, but E=mc2 appears to be an isolated debate with opponents of the equation lacking biblical support or a coherent world-view. Thanks, Wschact 18:52, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Isn't someone going to explain the high school experiment that supposedly proves that Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, thereby unifying gravity and light???--Andy Schlafly 18:55, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Please read what I wrote above. For your convenience: "Not everything which is true can be shown at a high-school. You may say that in this case, the theory is beyond the scope of this project, but that is not the case: certainly the readers of this encyclopedia should be informed about such things, even if they can't do the maths themselves - or perform the experiments. This demands of the editors of articles like this one that they are willing to get the knowledge of the subject! Indeed they should get more information than is put into the article at the end. A good teacher should know a little bit more than the curriculum of his pupils... "

With all due respect, as discussed many times on this page, E=mc2 does not "unify gravity and light". It addresses the conversion between matter and energy. The m is not gravitational mass. Thanks, Wschact 07:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)

An experiment performed at high-schools

I think that experiments on Compton Scattering are performed at high-schools. While generally used to show that electromagnetic rays may act like particles, Einstein's mass-energy relationship is used in the process. --AugustO 19:33, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Aschlafly, you created the article on Compton Scattering, but I can only guess how much you know about this subject, as it was just one in a flurry of similar very short articles, all copied and pasted from the [Talk:Compton Scattering|public domain]. So if you are not familiar with the experiment, have a look at the derivation of the Compton formula: it relies heavily on the mass-energy equivalence E=mc²!

This experiment was performed at my gymnasium by our teacher - due to the gamma radiation it would be a nightmare to have pupils to conduct the experiment for themselves.

Aschlafly, I reread your comments on this talk-page, and for me they are strangely disappointing: you are rarely arguing from physics, but mostly from politics. Or to quote you: You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true.

Neither the high school experiment, nor anything else about E=mc^2, purports to unify gravity and light. E=mc^2 does not relate to gravity; it would work in outer space. The "m" is inertial mass, not gravitational mass. The correspondence between the two is incidental, and relates to Einstein's equivalence principle (a completely different phenomenon) and the Eotvos experiment.

"Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed". Not so. It is a common misconception that E=mc^2 relates only to nuclear processes. It actually relates to all processes, though nuclear ones are the only ones for which the difference in mass can be reasonably measured. No one doubts the quantitative results, for nuclear processes, detailed on the article page. The equation E=mc^2, initially formulated on theoretical grounds, is in excellent agreement with those results. There is nothing about the theoretical underpinnings to suggest that there is some "threshold" below which Δm is zero, or that it only applies to certain types of interactions. There is good reason to believe that it applies everywhere, even though the mass difference, in the case of chemical reactions, is not readily measurable.

By the way, another "table-top" demonstration of relativity may be found here. It does not demonstrate E=mc^2; it's about electrodynamics under the Lorentz transform.

Thank you for sharing that experiment about generating and measuring DC current. A high school student could easily understand the physics, and the equipment could be made in the Industrial Arts shop. I miss my high school science fair days. (sigh) Wschact 00:28, 11 January 2013 (EST)

Source of heat in a nuclear power station

Andy, I explained this to the kids yesterday and it was an eye-opener for them. The teacher hadn't mentioned that E=mc2 was only a theory and might not be happening (well,what would you expect?). Anyway, they did ask me a good question that I couldn't answer. Where does the heat come from in a nuclear power station? They're only 12 so I just need something simple.

It looks to me like Uranium is reacting and turning into other things. Is this just a normal chemical reaction and the heat comes from the chemical changes just like, say, gunpowder? Of course they're being told that the heat comes from a loss of mass, and is thousands of times more than a chemical reaction would produce, so I want to make sure I'm on solid ground saying that it isn't. I did a search but couldn't find references to where the heat comes from other than mass being converted into energy and something called Free Energy which I don't understand.

If those are my biggest problems then I'm fairly happy :-) Now corrected. Peterw 09:57, 11 January 2013 (EST)

It is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all matter to light.

I changed this sentence to It is a statement that purports to relate all matter to energy. . My reasons:

The reader should decide for himself whether the statement is meaningless or nonsensical

The older version showed a misunderstanding of proportionality: in a proportionality, two variables (in this case matter and energy) are related by use of a constant (in this case c²). The older version implied a relationship between matter and the proportionality constant - which is nonsense. As Aschlafly stated above "Mass is not a function of the speed of light." Here he is right - as the function of a constant would be necessarily constant itself, but we know that there are different masses....

Citations Needed

This article really needs many citations. If a statement is made, for example, about people being unable to pursue a career in the sciences without accepting the topic of the article, some sort of source really should demonstrate that. Similar citations are needed elsewhere in the article. Avilister 19:14, 15 January 2013 (EST)

Reversion explained

The truth is defined by logic, not by consensus at liberal universities.--Andy Schlafly 19:24, 16 January 2013 (EST)

The truth is that there is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between between politics and E=mc2, and the idea that there is one is only your personal opinion. Why do you think that you receive such little support on this idea?--RobertDW 21:25, 16 January 2013 (EST)

Additionally, the page for this is just a mess. The opening section claims it to be liberal claptrap, while the rest of the article lists experiments that conclusively prove it to be true (None of which I think I've ever seen you directly address). If real-world results contradict your supposed logic, perhaps there is a problem with your logic?--RobertDW 21:31, 16 January 2013 (EST)

Aschlafly, that's not an explanation, that's just rhetoric: it's not about truth, it's about physics. Until now, you have failed to show that you have any knowledge of the matters discussed: you won't address any questions which require you to actually think about the subject and perhaps even take out a bit of paper and a pen (like #A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton)! Your position seems to be rooted in ignorance and wishful thinking, your arguments are just political talking points. That's not good enough when everybody else is talking about physics.

The truth, it seems, is what you define it to be, and not what dozens or hundreds of rigorously performed scientific studies support. Studies that have been repeated and re-tested for the better part of a century. Frankly, you're entirely unqualified to present yourself as an authority on a scientific topic like this. Have you ever looked into the data? Ever? Like, even a little? If you had, you'd have seen all sorts of phenomena that can't really be explained without E=mc^2. The fact that it can't be derived from first principles is entirely irrelevant in the face of all of the empirical data. For example, how can you explain the difference between the mass of an alpha particle and the sum of the masses of its four separate constituents? Hint: That missing mass didn't just go nowhere. Avilister 11:23, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly's comments

I reread the talk-page and gathered Andrew Schlafly's comments:

1

Beware of claims that the rest of the world completely agrees with something. Unanimously passed legislation is often the very worst kind.--Andy Schlafly 17:21, 16 December 2012 (EST)

2

It's a start for now, and will expand over time. That's how wikis work.--Andy Schlafly 01:18, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

3

Peer-reviewed journals won't publish a criticism of relativity. That's obvious. Although I don't have a copy of the full paper, I doubt it attempts to fully support the hearsay that was excluded, and I would not be surprised if it was included simply to safeguard against complaints for what followed. It adds nothing to the basic point that follows and is quoted here.--Andy Schlafly 21:19, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

4

JoshuaB, do you accept the possibility that the Theory of Relativity may be false, and would you approve a well-written paper that criticized it? It's a simple "yes" or "no" question.--Andy Schlafly 21:55, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

5

The qualifications on your answer render it almost meaningless. I'm not asking whether your approval of a paper would make a difference, or your opinion about whether you think the replacement of the Theory of Relativity will "most likely" be another theory of relativity. The question was simple and straightforward, referring to a paper critical of the theory of relativity without any appeasement to those who insist on believing in it. An unqualified answer is requested.

Also, did you ever answer my simple question on Talk:Main Page about how much time you've spent reading the Bible this month?--Andy Schlafly 22:50, 25 March 2012 (EDT)

6

The quotes (and others that could be added) illustrate how meaningless the formula is.--Andy Schlafly 10:02, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

7

The quotes were solicited to describe the meaning of the equation to laymen, not to illustrate how difficult that is. The difficulty arises from the meaningless nature of the equation.--Andy Schlafly 11:01, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

8

The problem is that E=m2 does not meaning anythimg that makes sense. Anyone is welcome to try to explain it here. Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared.--Andy Schlafly 16:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

9

No, I don't. E=mc2 is supposedly a general truth of universal applicability. The case for it, if true, needs to be far stronger than what is quoted above.--Andy Schlafly 11:15, 26 March 2012 (EDT)

10

AugustO, chemical reactions can release energy, typically based not on the size of their mass but on the electrostatic energy prior to the reaction. Cockcroft's own paper accepting the Nobel Prize does not claim that his work proved that E=mc2. Undoubtedly many other experiments contradict the formula, or else we'd have seen far more claims of experimental verification of it.--Andy Schlafly 11:20, 31 March 2012 (EDT)

The lead focus of the entry was converted into a parade of hearsay rather than logical analysis. Simply put, the entry had denigrated into the antithesis of the truth-seeking integrity expected of Conservapedia.--Andy Schlafly 19:41, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

13

The entry explains how nonsensical the formula is as a general principle -- and how it has never been derived as a matter of logic or demonstrated in any general, meaningful manner. Reliance on hearsay is not a serious alternative.--Andy Schlafly 20:24, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

14

You restate the claim as though its repetition would make it true. It doesn't. If someone gains one pound in weight, then it is preposterous for anyone to claim that his energy has thereby increased in proportion to the speed of light squared.--Andy Schlafly 21:07, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

15

The formula E=mc2 does assert that his energy for a fixed gain in weight would increase in proportion to the speed of light squared and, as you say, that is preposterous.--Andy Schlafly 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

16

Great point. I retrieved and added many of the citations back. If I missed any then I'd be happy to add them also.--Andy Schlafly 23:37, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

17

Even a broken clock (like the Nobel Prize) gets it right every once in a while!--Andy Schlafly 22:07, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

18

You make some valid points as the online evidence is remarkably scant, even though the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein is well-known. This may be a (rare) example where the internet is less adequate than books. I did add an explanatory footnote and the protection to the page should be expiring soon, if not already.--Andy Schlafly 10:22, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

19

No, that would not explain why it "is impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of" E=mc2. Even if you think the formula is somehow true, surely you do not deny the political pressure in academia against anyone who might consider questioning it.--Andy Schlafly 10:37, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

20

But Energy and mass have known meanings in other contexts, unlike the distances (in inches) on the map page in your example. If Energy or mass were being redefined by E=mc2, then I think your analogy would work. But people are not defending E=mc2 by saying it entails a redefinition of Energy or mass.--Andy Schlafly

21

(inserted reply here) E=mc2 claims more than the relation between mass and energy is linear (which is itself implausible). It also claims that the proportional factor is precisely equal to the speed of light squared. Restating the meaning of the equation in plain terms demonstrates how implausible it is.--Andy Schlafly 20:41, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

22

The equation is nonsensical. Mass has nothing to do with the speed of light, and cannot be equated to energy simply by multiplying it twice by the speed of light.--Andy Schlafly 20:33, 4 April 2012 (EDT)

23

"Usually when we speak of an object's mass we do not distinguish whether we are referring to its inertial mass or its gravitational mass. This is because the quantity of matter present in an object, i.e., its mass, does not depend on the method by which it is measured." [1] Indeed, no measurement has ever detected a difference between the two.

As to your second point, chemical reactions can cause energy to be released, and the remaining mass to be reduced. This is hardly astounding and certainly does not imply that E=mc2.

Your third point is often repeated by Relativists but overlooks that Maxwell's equations were developed and demonstrated decades before the Theory of Relativity. Maxwell's equations survived just fine for years without anyone claiming that somehow E=mc2. Indeed, an assertion that people "have to reject Maxwell's equations" based on relativity suggests a mathematical approach to physics, rather than an observational one. Are you aware of how Eddington claimed that a physical constant "must" have a certain value due to some mathematical rationale? (He was wrong, of course.)--Andy Schlafly 21:06, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

24

Simply put, the Theory of Relativity is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations. Any statement that someone must reject Maxwell's equations if he rejects the Theory of Relativity shows how the mathematical cart can be incorrectly placed before the physical horse.--Andy Schlafly 00:21, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

25

Cockcroft's experiments were not performed until 1932 [2], and recognition for his work did not occur from the Nobel Prize committee until 1951. I could find nothing in the Prize, Cockcroft's acceptance speech, or anything else contemporaneous that suggests that Cockcroft proved that E=mc2.

One comment above suggests that E=me2 was accepted long before 1932. Based on what, mere politics? This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932. Folks, E=mc2 seems to be based on politics rather than physics.--Andy Schlafly 18:02, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

26

The formula cannot be derived in any sensible way, not merely a rigorous way. Numerous attempts to derive it have been failures. Moreover, the first claimed experimental observation for the formual was not dates from 1932, long after the formula was declared to be unquestionable dogma.--Andy Schlafly 19:20, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

A recent peer-reviewed scientific paper, which has been cited in this entry, also confirms that E=mc2 cannot be mathematically derived.--Andy Schlafly 15:53, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

29

That sounds like what the paper would have to say in order to be published, yes. An academic journal will withdraw its acceptance of a paper if it conflicts with the Theory of Relativity in any way. Anyone in academia who criticizes the Theory of Relativity in any way, no matter how minor, is risking the end of his professional career due to liberal orthodoxy. Robert Dicke, the greatest American physicist ever, was denied the Nobel Prize because he criticized the Theory of Relativity.--Andy Schlafly 23:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

30

The claim that something "is the most accurately tested theory in physics" is a canard often heard by defenders of the Theory of Relativity. Step back, look at the phrase objectively, and it's easy to see that such a claim is unscientific. Indeed, such a claim sounds like something one would hear in politics. Not only are there more than three dozen counterexamples disproving the Theory of Relativity, but the claim on which it was based (the advance of the perihelion of Mercury) is now disproof of the theory. But notice how few people are interested in reviewing more precise data, and instead cite imprecise data that are a half-century old or more.--Andy Schlafly 21:49, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

31

Robert Dicke's criticism of the general theory of relativity is well-known. For that, he was disqualified from receiving the Nobel Prize, despite being the most accomplished American physicist ever.--Andy Schlafly 21:41, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

If this were a "simple demonstration of a basic principle," then that would be all the more reason why it should be recognized with a Nobel Prize, given the lack of a prize for the same principle. Indeed, has any Nobel Prize been awarded for a purported confirmation of E=mc2? (Cockcroft's work did not claim to confirm the equation.)--Andy Schlafly 14:40, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

34

It's completely logical. Some liberal claptrap is even too much for the Nobel Prize committee, and that's worth pointing out.--Andy Schlafly 14:58, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

Energy can be viewed as the ability to do work, as in applying a force. Electrostatic charge can certainly do that.

35

Mass applies, at most, a very weak force, and it has no connection with the speed of light squared. It's almost comical to claim that any meaningful statement of energy is found by multiplying mass times the speed of light squared.--Andy Schlafly 22:28, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

36

The surface area of a sphere is related to its radius, and to . But the claim that mass and the speed of light have any relation at all to each other, through energy or anything else, is absurd.--Andy Schlafly 23:21, 11 November 2012 (EST)

37

It's a liberal fiction that E=mc2 has ever been applied in any practical way. The equation defines rest mass in terms of the speed of light - an absurdity.--Andy Schlafly 10:15, 12 November 2012 (EST)

38

We've discussed the claim about relativity and GPS over and over on this site, and as a matter of historical fact (not to mention obvious engineering efficiency), theoretical relativity was not part of its design. It is far easier and more accurate simply to synchronize directly based on observation, as may be needed.--Andy Schlafly 11:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)

39

It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. There has been no Nobel Prize awarded for it, for example, and there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation.

But a broken clock is correct twice a day. Would someone claim that proves the clock is working??--Andy Schlafly 20:21, 12 November 2012 (EST)

Of course not. A clock that goes backwards is correct 4 times a day. No-one would suggest that that makes it even better.--Occultations 21:52, 30 January 2013 (EST)

40

No Nobel Prize has been given for this implausible formula, so no meaningful experimental verification of it has occurred. There is utterly no logical explanation for the formula. It's in the realm of science fiction at best, and not as good as other types of science fiction.--Andy Schlafly 15:52, 8 January 2013 (EST)

41

Broken clocks are precisely correct twice a day too. One or two bizarre experiments in more than a century of trying to prove the formula as a general proposition are hardly persuasive. The Nobel Prize committee wants to recognize the formula has being demonstrated, but can't. There is no logical support for the formula, as peer reviewed articles have virtually admitted.--Andy Schlafly 14:11, 9 January 2013 (EST)

42

Mass is not a function of the speed of light. A century of effort (and billions of taxpayer dollars) to try to connect the two has struck out. Chemical reactions can yield a release of energy, but mass is neither created nor destroyed.--Andy Schlafly 23:40, 9 January 2013 (EST)

43

August, please explain below any high school experiment that you think proves the formula. You might your view why a Nobel Prize was not given for it.--Andy Schlafly 14:36, 9 January 2013 (EST)

44

The significance of no Nobel Prize for this is the same as the significance of the dog that didn't bark: dogs want to bark, and the Nobel Prize committee wants to honor atheistic, nonsensical theories like relativity, but there is nothing there, there.--Andy Schlafly 17:24, 9 January 2013 (EST)

45

The truth is defined by logic, not by consensus at liberal universities.--Andy Schlafly 19:24, 16 January 2013 (EST)

46

Folks, a century of attempts to unify gravity and light have been unsuccessful. E=mc2 is a science fiction goal that billions of dollars in attempts have been unable to achieve.--Andy Schlafly 19:59, 17 January 2013 (EST)

47

Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them. Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???--Andy Schlafly 20:25, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Andrew (Aschlafly? Andy?), these comments show that you may understand politics, but not physics. Indeed, some are contradictory: in 24 you say Simply put, the Theory of Relativity is a mathematical theory (which, by the way, is taught in math departments in some universities); this mathematical theory has never been based on meaningful physical observations., while in 27 we read This formula cannot be demonstrated mathematically even to this day, and the first (dubious) proof for it was not observed until 1932. and in 42there is no logical basis for even deriving the equation.

What is it: we have experiments which show that the formula is applicable in many occasions: indeed, no situation has been found where it doesn't work. And what is a mathematical theory other than a logical conclusion?

Other comments are simply untrue, like 39: It's widely recognized that E=mc2 has not been experimentally verified. E=mc² has been used in countless experiments!

Not one of the comments shows that you are willing to put some work into your answers - like looking at the experiments or the data. These comments are best described by your own words:

This is impressive AugustO! I think I understand Mr. Schlafly's opposition to E=mc2 now. The theory states that mass and energy are equivalent. But looking at Aschlafly's hand waiving exercise, that is simply not the case. For he clearly has expended a great deal of energy to produce very little substance. --DonnyC 15:23, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Folks, a century of attempts to unify gravity and light have been unsuccessful. E=mc2 is a science fiction goal that billions of dollars in attempts have been unable to achieve.--Andy Schlafly 19:59, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Have you even read anything that anyone has posted here? Address the experiments that prove it true. The main article and talk page are full of them. What is wrong with them? How are they flawed? How is E=mc2 used incorrectly in each of them? How do you explain E=mc2 fitting perfectly into each of them? You have essentially repeated yourself, over and over, without addressing any actual facts, once.--RobertDW 20:10, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Perhaps it is easier to copy my answers than to respond to them. Is there anyone here who really thinks that a theory unifying gravity and light has been discovered???--Andy Schlafly 20:25, 17 January 2013 (EST)

No, there has been no unified field theory discovered that joins the 4 known forces of nature. Now, let's get back to E=mc2.--DonnyC 20:32, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Yet that is precisely what E=mc2 purports to do. After a century of trying, many realize it is impossible.--Andy Schlafly 21:00, 17 January 2013 (EST)

Andy, I know you pride yourself on having an Open mind, so let me ask you this: Has the possibility ever occurred to you that you do not really know what you are talking about when it comes to subjects outside your field of expertise, theoretical physics being an example? --DamianJohn 21:21, 17 January 2013 (EST)

@Aschlafly, Einstein did not claim E=mc2 to be a unified theory. If he had, he would have said so and called it a day back in 1905 instead of spending the latter years of his research in the 1950's looking for a unifying theory. You do understand that the 'c2' portion of the equation is just a constant, right? It's simply the maximum speed that any change in a field or massless particle can propagate. So we can actually remove "light" (which seems to be a sticking point for you) from the equation and substitute any wave or field whose speed is independent of the motion of the observer and the wave's source. So you could replace light with anything that travels that fast. You could even plug in gravity in lieu of light if that better suits your fancy. If it could be proven that "bad news" traveled at the speed of light you could plug that in as well.

The point being is I think somewhere along the way you got tripped up on the what the formula actually expresses versus what you think it says. This is witnessed by your statement of: "Eating a pound of cake does not cause one's energy to increase by the speed of light squared". Indeed. --DonnyC 22:42, 17 January 2013 (EST)

You are out by a factor of 1000. A kiloton of TNT-equiv is approximately 4.185*10e12 Joules. The kiloton equivalent for the figure GregG gave would be about (given he didn't use the approapriate figure for the speed of light in a vacuum I'll approximate as well) 20000 kilotons (20 megatons). Dvergne 01:53, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Correct. I was doing the conversion in my head. It's should be something around 21,500 kilotons (21.5 megatons). Which of course would make my subsequent conversion incorrect as well. I guess that would make me.... wait for it... wrong. Thanks for the correction DVergne. Wow! It's surprisingly easy to admit you're wrong! Maybe other people will try it... --DonnyC 02:04, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Indeed, 1kg has an equivalent energy of - a immense number: it equals 25TWh - the output of all German power-stations combined in a fortnight. On the other hand, the sun emits this means that it loses roughly 15 Trillion kg each second - or the mass of our Moon in less than 57 days.

But we have had other examples of the equation on this talk-page:

In Cockroft's experiment, a mass of is transformed into an energy of

In Compton's experiment, rays having a frequency of a couple of EHz are used. The photons have an energy W=h*f, and interact with electrons as having a mass of W/c².

Science fiction is great stuff ... as long as one doesn't start believing it, or allow it to take time away from truths, such as the Bible. Suppose I drink a glass of water, which has mass of about 0.5 pounds (roughly 1 kg). Zero calories, of course. Yet do you maintain that my energy increases in proportion to the speed of light squared?

What percentage of people who believe relativity's crass, silly materialism are likely to read the Bible earnestly, or pursue other real truths?--Andy Schlafly 23:29, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Andy, first 0.5 pounds is not roughly 1 kg. Second, your gastrointestinal tract performs chemical reactions, it's not a nuclear fusion plant. Thirdly, I have no clue what percentage of people who accept the theory of relativity are likely to read the Bible, but I'm guessing you have some sort of figure in mind. From your line of questioning it would appear that a) you fundamentally do not understand the topic under discussion and b) you're trying to change the subject. --DonnyC 23:50, 18 January 2013 (EST)

Good point about the arithmetic - a glass of water is closer to 0.22 kg in weight than to 1 kg. But the underlying point remains the same: drinking a class of water does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. It's science fiction, and not very good at that.--Andy Schlafly 00:29, 19 January 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly's answers in the section above

Andrew, you still ignore experimental evidence, but repeat and repeat again that E=mc² is nonsensical, etc. Furthermore, you offer a thought experiment: drinking a class of water does not increase one's energy in proportion to the speed of light squared. Well, if you drank this glass of water and then got transferred to the center of the sun, it would burn a tiny little bit longer then if you would have been transferred without drinking it. For you this may seem counterintuitive: therefore take a step back and answer #A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton - keep an open mind! --AugustO 08:41, 19 January 2013 (EST)

You seem to prefer liberal theoreticians who were long on speculation, but short on experimental achievements. Robert Dicke actually built and discovered things, like the lock-in amplifier, in addition to theorizing.unsigned comment from Aschlafly 23:32, 18 January 2013

You're clearly not very familiar with the way the field of physics actually works. The field is divided into theorists and experimenters. Theorists try to figure out how everything should be working, and come up with (surprise) theories about what those might be. In some cases, they take data sets created by those folks that have been experimenting and try to figure out why they contain the data they have (which is typically not the data that was expected). The fact that they don't have much in the way of experimental accomplishments doesn't really much matter because that isn't their job. When they do finish a theory of something, some intrepid experimenter out there will pick it up and try to either prove or disprove that theory via experiment. This cycle continues thus pretty much perpetually. Avilister 21:56, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Is there any evidence anywhere (please, show me a link to an article somewhere - news, actual science, whatever - that shows that you didn't just make this up) that Dicke was denied a Noble Prize just because he didn't accept relativity? It took quite a while for physicists to come around to the idea of relativity, just as it took time for the reality of quantum mechanics to sink in. Meanwhile empirical evidence was mounting and it sort of became hard to deny after taking a look at the real data. I'm not too familiar with this Dicke figure (given that I'm an undergrad in physics, that makes me question whether he was the greatest of his century), but it may very well be that he just never had a chance to really sit down and examine the data. Avilister 17:10, 30 January 2013 (EST)

Nuclear Energy

In the interest of consistency, I have removed a section of the nuclear energy article to bring it in line with this article. MattyD 12:40, 19 January 2013 (EST)

An neutron has an atomic weight of 1.008664916 amu, a proton has a mass of 1.007276466 amu, an electron has a mass of 0.000548580 amu. Therefore 92 protons, 92 electrons and 143 neutrons have a combined mass of 236.9589872 amu. But an atom of - consisting of 92 protons, 92 electrons and 143 neutrons has a mass of 235.0439299. Does a liberal conspiracy hide roughly 1.915 amu of any atom of this isotope?

I will try one last time to explain this. Suppose that blowing up an atomic bomb with 1 lb of Uranium releases x amount of energy, and blowing up an atomic bomb with 2 lbs of Uranium releases 2x amount of energy, and blowing up an atomic bomb with 3 lbs of Uranium releases 3x amount of energy. Could we then conclude that the energy released by the atomic bomb was proportional to its mass? (If we invented a new unit of measuring energy "the Wschact" where one Wschact equaled the amount of energy released by converting one kg of uranium into energy), the equation would be: E (in Wschact units) = m (mass in kg)

The proportionality constant would be 1 (Wschact per kg).

Is it possible that (for some liberal claptrap reason) we could define the metric system of energy units in a way that the proportionality constant was set equal to a number that equals the speed of light squared? But because energy is measured in Joules, we have E =mc2, where c2 converts between Wschacts and Joules.

Any kid would agree that if you double the size of a bomb, the explosion would be twice as powerful. So this is a very intuitive equation. I hope this helps. Thanks, Wschact 21:43, 19 January 2013 (EST)

Editing the Article

Andrew Schlafly, I'd appreciate if you'd abstain from editing this article: you haven't answered any questions on the underlying physics and mathematics (like #A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton), and therefore haven't shown any understanding of the subject. Simply put, shouting "claptrap, claptrap, claptrap" again and again doesn't make a convincing argument.

Simple question

This line appears in the introduction: "... light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis". So my question to Mr. Schlafly is this: does the light in this statement refer to the entire electromagnetic spectrum? A simple yes or no will suffice, but if you are willing to expound on your answer, it would be appreciated. --DonnyC 15:15, 24 January 2013 (EST)

This article has a number of mistakes

For example, light isn't the same as energy. Light contains energy but so does oil.

Also mass, acceleration and force are all connected by Newton's laws, F=ma. So,

“

Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces,

”

doesn't make sense because mass and forces are connected through that equation.

I'd correct it but, unlike the spirit of a wiki, this page is uneditable. It simply gets reverted. Thanks. PhysicsPerson 16:29, 25 January 2013 (EST)

I think you have made some very good points AugustO, but its time to move on. Accept the fact that the article will not be changing and you will have a happier time of it. Its time to let the readers decider for themselves whether they accept Mr Schlafly's unconventional approach or not. You are beginning to get repetitive and I suspect there are some admins who are out to get you. Don't give them the satisfaction. --DamianJohn 03:15, 27 January 2013 (EST)

Problems with the newest edit..

The popular Twilight Zone series featured E=mc² prominently, giving the equation greater currency with the public. It's perhaps the most recognizable formula today. But I doubt that this was the result of one television series.

But light has never been unified with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so. You keep using this word (unified). I don't think that it means what you think it means. Having mass, energy and the speed of light all appearing in one single equation doesn't necessarily unify these concepts!

The claim that E=mc² has never yielded anything of value and it has often been used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes by non-scientific journals. This is your position, Andrew Schlafly. Nearly all physicists think different - even though they fail to convince you! Therefore it should be made clear that this is the position of critics of the theory...

Claims can be found on liberal, second-tier college websites that... Yes, they can. And they can be found at the websites of the top schools. Andrew Schlafly, I dare you to find a top-10 physics department which doesn't make such "claims"! --AugustO 01:20, 30 January 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, please address these points before reverting to an inferior version of the article! --AugustO 09:54, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Enough is enough. Andy, please stop it

This has gone on long enough. It's time for you to pay attention to what everyone else, and the evidence, and logic, are telling you. You have been engaging in what appears to be deliberate obfuscation, willful misunderstanding of terms and concepts, and repeated attempts to change the subject, for long enough. It's time to stop.

You have attempted to change the subject to Bible reading. There is a cute comic on the subject of correlation vs. causation here.

You have attempted to change the subject to politics. It has nothing to do with liberalism. While moral relativism is a phenomenon more commonly associated with liberals than with conservatives, that has absolutely nothing to do with relativity.

You have attempted to change the subject to the relative merits of theoreticians and practical scientists/inventors, and the preferences of the Nobel prize judges. It's true that Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger didn't invent any devices (as far as I know), but they discovered quantum mechanics. The Nobel committee gives great weight to theoretical advances. Maybe you disagree with that policy, but that's the policy. Robert Dicke, in addition to being an inventor, was a good theoretician. But your assertions that he

was the greatest American physicist ever, and perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century,

criticized or refuted relativity,

was denied the Nobel Prize because because of this

are all questionable and excessive. Inventing the lock-in amplifier was nice, but you don't win Nobels for that. There are many other American physicists (Michelson, Morley, Feynmann, Weinberg, Bethe, Compton, Anderson, Glashow, Bardeen, Brattain, Shockley, etc. etc.) that one could claim were superior. And, if one goes outside the United States but stays within the 20th century, the list is even longer—Bohr, Dirac, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, etc. Also, I assume you know that Dicke accepted special relativity, as did every other scientist worthy of the name. His disagreement was over the claim that general relativity explains gravity. He accepted the metric tensor on 4-dimensional spacetime, and Riemann's tensor, and Ricci's tensor, and Einstein's tensor, and that gravity arises from Ricci's and Einstein's tensors. He simply had a different "scalar-tensor" formulation than Einstein, about how Ricci's and Einstein's tensors arise from matter. His theory becomes equivalent to Einstein's if the coupling constant (ω) goes to infinity. And you must know, because you have cited the article here, spacecraft measurements have definitively refuted the Brans-Dicke theory. (The article is currently behind a subscription firewall, but I have read it.) You do not win Nobels for proposing theories that, brilliant though they may be, are wrong. And your often-repeated statement that he was denied a Nobel for criticizing relativity is preposterous. He didn't criticize it, and you don't know why he never won the prize. There are many physicists, and few prizes, and many worthy people never win the prize.

You have accused the Nobel committee, and many other people, of being liberals, and of being biased against criticism of relativity. Even if true, that has nothing to do with whether E=mc^2 is correct. Even if universities would never give a faculty post to someone who criticizes relativity (a completely unsupported claim), that has nothing to do with whether E=mc^2 is correct.

You have repeated the meaningless term "liberal claptrap" again and again. It has no place in a discussion of an equation, and it convinces no one.

You have repeatedly maintained that, since this equation doesn't "unify" gravity and light, or gravity and matter, or gravity and the strong force, it can't be right. Unification of fundamental forces is not easy. And even though unification of all fundamental forces has not been achieved, it is still the case that the mass of an alpha particle plus a Radon-222 nucleus is less than that of a Radium-222 6 nucleus.

You have made what seems to me to be willful attempts to obfuscate issues and terms, like gravity, light, mass, and energy:

E=mc^2 has nothing to do with gravity. The only connection is that the Earth's gravity provides a convenient way of measuring the mass of produce in grocery stores. "m" is for inertial mass, a scientific concept that you must have learned about at Princeton. The masses of various particles (more about that later) are measured with a mass spectrometer, not with a scale.

E=mc^2 doesn't directly relate to light. The phrase "speed of light" is just a convenient term for the time-vs.-space calibration constant of relativity. It happens that light travels at that speed. Now the intellectual distinction between the speed at which light travels and the calibration constant was not understood clearly in the early days, but it is now known, from the relativistic formulation of electromagnetism in terms of the Faraday tensor, that the calibration constant "c" appears in the wave equation, deduced from Maxwell's equations. This derivation is not usually handled at the undergraduate level, and you may not have seen it. But it isn't necessary for an understanding of E=mc^2. The speed "c" is fundamental. Light travels at that speed because of the 4-tensor formulation of electrodynamics, using the Faraday tensor on Minkowski space-time. "c" appears in E=mc^2 because it is fundamental to the Lorentz transform.

Your claims about your "energy increasing by mc^2" when you drink water seems to be a ludicrous attempt to confuse what it means to "have energy". It's not the same thing as what you hear about in advertisements for "energy drinks". You don't "have" that energy in the sense of being able to leap tall buildings or bench-press 1000 pounds.. I'm sure you know that, and are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue. The only sense in which one "has" that energy in any normal sense of the release of energy, is that if you combined with an anti-Andy made of antimatter, the energy would be released, and, if you and the anti-Andy had consumed a liter of water and anti-water respectively, that much more energy would be released. But other than that, the energy is not accessible. Of course you *can* release energy, albeit a microscopically smaller amount than mc^2, when you consume more nutritious substances, like cake.

Now, getting to the nuclear reactions, this is the sense, and the only sense, in which E=mc^2 is meaningful. You've seen, and apparently ignored, the extensive discussion above and on the article page, but I'll go through it one more time. Please pay close attention.

The mass of the Radium-226 atom is 226.0254098 amu, which is 3.753239901×10-25 kg. I hope you accept this.

The mass of the Radon-222 atom is 222.0175777 amu, which is 3.6866882892×10-25 kg.

The mass of the Helium-4 atom (alpha particle) is 4.002603254 amu, which is 6.64647848859×10-27 kg.

When a Radium-226 atom undergoes alpha decay, it turns into a Radon-222 atom plus a Helium-4 atom, which have a combined mass of 3.753153074×10-25 kg.

These don't add up. 8.682702295×10-30 kg were lost. OK?

Now the energy released is 4.871 MeV, which is 7.8042×10-13 Joules.

The ratio of the energy released to the mass lost is 8.9882×1016 meters squared per second squared.

The square root of that is 2.998×108 meters per second. It is a speed, and it matches the speed of light.

This relationship has been verified for many many reactions.

That's all that E=mc^2 is saying. Nothing more. Nothing about eating cake.

So, instead of repeatedly calling it "liberal claptrap", you would do a much better job of convincing people that the equation is incorrect by coming up with some other explanation for why a radium atom loses 4.871 Mev / c^2 of mass when it emits a 4.781 MeV alpha particle.

Now I will agree that E=mc^2 is surprisingly hard to derive, for such a simple equation. Correct and understandable derivations are actually hard to come by—Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler finally gets to it, in an extremely complicated way, starting around page 120. At the risk of being immodest, I recommend my own derivation on another wiki as being fairly direct. You can find it by Googling the exact quoted phrase "sees the light traveling a longer distance". Whether it is a "rigorous proof" is in the eye of the beholder.

It is human to become so emotionally invested in a position, that there is no room left for logic or reasoning. A strong organization has ways to handle such situations. There are always at least two viewpoints to every dispute, and it always helps to try to invest some time into trying to understand both viewpoints. I agree with SamHB that "Enough is enough." A lot of people who care about CP have spent a lot of time reading this talk page and editing the article. If we all want CP to thrive and progress, we need to work together to find a way forward. Perhaps we could draw three number out of a hat at random and then count down the alphabetical list of editors to randomly select a committee to review this page. (If number 4 was drawn, the 4th editor on the list would be selected.) Everyone could make a pitch to the Committee, they would edit the page, and we would stop talking past each other. If anyone has a better way forward, please propose one. Thanks, Wschact 18:47, 2 February 2013 (EST)

Would the supporters of E=mc2 be OK with E=mc1.5? It has just as much logical basis, which is nil.--Andy Schlafly 18:53, 2 February 2013 (EST)

The Cockcroft and Walton Experiment - as well as the experiments at the MIT in 2005 - have shown that the constant of proportionality is c². And that's what all the mathematical derivations for special cases show, too: here is a neat trick for an engineer - develop mc² as a Taylor series (using the relativistic mass) and look closely at the first terms. That wouldn't work with c3/2

Andy, Isaac Newton would agree that the exponent would have to be 2 if it's anything. F=ma. Energy is defined as the force times distance, so the units of energy have to be mass times distance squared over time squared. The exponent is fixed because of the definitions of energy and acceleration in classical Newtonian physics. Of course this says nothing about the magnitudes of E, m or v but it does say any other exponent violates Newton's world. MelH 19:52, 2 February 2013 (EST)

No one person has a monopoly on the truth. No one person has the definitive Bible interpretation. So far, I have not seen any Biblical basis for Andy's views on E=mc2. Nor, have I seen any scientific basis for Andy's views. While I respect Andy a great deal, he seems to have unique views on the interpretation of this equation. So, it would be best if everyone could agree to move the resolution of this issue into dispassionate hands. CP editors would feel more confident in the strength of the website's leadership, and our users would gain more trust in CP's contents. Many CP editors see no conflict between E=mc2 and their religious views. Many CP editors see a big difference between the theory of special relativity and the theory of general relativity. Everyone knows that the exponent must be 2 in order for the units to come out right. Many, many sources say that E=mc2 is used to design atom bombs and that relativistic effects were taken into account in the design of the GPS system. The United States government even issued a postage stamp featuring the equation. Can we please resolve this in a manner that will reflect well on both CP and its leadership? Thanks, Wschact 13:36, 4 February 2013 (EST)

Wschact I feel that this article is at an impasse. If Mr. Schlafly was presenting an alternative theory that was internally consistent, matched all empirical observations, and could be shown to be held by another living soul... then we could work out a compromise article that was informative to the reader. Instead this article consists of factual information that has been liberally seasoned with Andy's editorial commentary and unsubstantiated claims. This has the effect of making it read like a someone with a split-personality wrote it. --DonnyC 15:22, 4 February 2013 (EST)

Too right everyone, this article (in fact, this whole website) is nothing more than one person's point of view. And it makes the whole website look silly [3]. That's why I suggest moving on to a different encyclopedia. Like Wikipedia or a different conservative one. There are plenty conservative ones that are created for the sole reason that Mc. Schlafly is making this his own. I say we all abandon him. PhysicsPerson 19:23, 4 February 2013 (EST)

It may be tempting to just ignore this article from now on and accept that it will never be corrected because of Mr. Schlafly's inflexibility. But Conservapedia is not just any blog, it is supposedly an educational resource for students. It is irresponsible and shameful to present unsubstantiated opinions as scientific fact in such a forum. Let's hope/pray that Mr. Schlafly can see this from all of the constructive criticisms and comments on this talk page. --Randall7 20:17, 5 February 2013 (EST)

Since all the editors participating in this discussion except one are in agreement, why not edit the article and revert and changes made by the dissenting voice? That's basically what's been happening to this point, except in reverse. Its tyranny by a minority and certainly does not represent either the way that a nominal democracy should work or, indeed, how the scientific method works. I take some small solace from the knowledge that the truth itself cares not what this article says and instead continues to be true regardless of Andy's opinions. Avilister 22:19, 7 February 2013 (EST)

You make the mistake of assuming that this is a democracy. It is a meritocracy, which means that the view with the most merit is accepted. The most meritorious user here is Andy. --DamianJohn 23:00, 7 February 2013 (EST)

We need a way to determine "the best of the public." Wschact 03:15, 9 February 2013 (EST)

"He who pays the piper . . ." I do sympathise with you and AugustO, but I think its time to move on. --DamianJohn 03:30, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Sorry, not good enough. Merit is all good and well, but it isn't a substitution for competence. You can earn merits in one field, and still be incompetent in another. IMO it is the right thing to try to help a otherwise meritorious person not to look like a rambling fool in an area where he oversteps the boundaries of his knowledge. --AugustO 03:55, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Let's be absolutely clear here. Are you saying that Aschlafly is "incompetent", that he "look(s) like a rambling fool", and that he is "overstep(ping)" the boundaries of his knowledge? If the answers are "yes, yes, and yes", then please say what you mean directly! Beating around the bush is a liberal trait. DanAP 08:09, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Beating around the bush is a liberal trait. As is incivility. Yes, I'm disappointed by the current state of the article, yes, I'd say that the article is kept in its current state not because of mathematical or physical arguments, but because of the lack of those. Yes, I sometimes get crestfallen by the lack of scientific insight, but no, I wouldn't formulate my frustration the way you want me to do it. --AugustO 08:36, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Then who exactly is "incompetent"? Who "look(s) like a rambling fool"? Who is guilty of "incivility"? Why is it so hard for liberals to speak directly? DanAP 09:02, 9 February 2013 (EST)

Again, I phrase my criticism as poignant as possible in a civil environment. After all, there should be a discussion and not a shouting match.

Why is it so hard for liberals to speak directly? I don't know - perhaps you should ask a liberal? Or were you just calling me a liberal in a very indirect way? You wouldn't do something so intricate, would you?

The same page lists experiments which verify the formula and other pages on Conservapedia show how this formula is used in reality (Compton Scattering, Cockcroft and Walton Experiment.) Especially Talk:E=mc² shows that the statement E=mc² is liberal claptrap is a conviction only held by Andrew Schlafly, for which no mathematical or physical reason is given.

Robert Dicke

Is there any source for this claim? I couldn't find one. Is this just made up? --AugustO 02:11, 9 February 2013 (EST)

There is no other plausible explanation. Surely you don't expect a physics journal or any academic to admit such bias.--Andy Schlafly 23:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)

So it is only your personal opinion, rooted in your belief that you are the one to know who should and should not be awarded the Nobel Prize. Yes, Robert Dicke was scooped in the experimental detection of background radiation for which Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson were awarded half the prize in 1978, but unless you have at least some proof that this was related to his opinion on general relativity (not special relativity, here he agreed with Einstein), you can only say something like: For example, some speculate that Robert Dicke, perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a Nobel Prize because he doubted the Theory of Relativity.

BTW: I personally think that it would have been apt if Robert Dicke shared the prize with Penzias and Wilson for this important test of the Big Bang model of the universe.

About Robert Dicke, Wilson and Penzias and the Nobel prizes. One thing is that you can only get a Nobel Prize for an experiment with an explanation. Never for just a theory (Stephen Hawking never got a Nobel for his radiation). Dicke predicted CMB radiation but he wasn't the first to observe it. Wilson and Penzias observed it first completely by accident, and luckily Penzias talked to Dicke and found out what the thing he observed was. It was Dicke's theory but they observed it. So they got the Nobel. That's how it works. [4]

And I don't understand why there's so much emphasis on Nobel prizes in this article. Obviously the Nobel prize committee isn't a neutral party. Does that matter? Are people really not going to question an equation because they're afraid that they'll never get a Nobel? Only about 500 people got a Nobel so far, out of millions of scientists. Clearly that isn't a motivating factor. PhysicsPerson 19:04, 15 February 2013 (EST)

Reasons to restore the version of Feb 10, 2010

Andrew Schlafly, you reverted some edits, claiming that you restored "Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap" and other truths. "Simply put, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap" doesn't become a truth just because you are repeating it! I'll take you through some of the edits - again - and I hope that you won't make this kind of silly reversion again.

Andrew Schlafly

Rest of the World

Comment

E=mc² is Einstein's famous formula which asserts that the energy (E) which makes up the matter in any body is equal to the square of the speed of light (c²) times the mass (m) of that body.

E=mc² is Einstein's famous formula which states that energy (E) of a body is equivalent to the square of the speed of light (c²) times the mass (m) of that body.

The formula is called the mass-energy-equivalence - this is reflected by the version on the right.

there are many derivations for special cases and experimental verifications

Any source for this statement? No. It's a conspiracy, so the statement is true because there is no proof for it! Anyway, Robert Dicke only had problems with the general theory, and not with this formula.

Entering the phrase: "Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap" into commonly-used search engines, reveals that an overwhelming majority of the internet community considers Conservapedia's claims (more accurately described as, Andy Schlafly's unsubstantiated assertions) to be a subject fit for ridicule[1][2][3][4][5][6][7].

Andrew, you seem to think that this follows from the sentences above - but it doesn't. It's not even an opinion you have, it's a kind of gut-feeling.

But light has never been unified with matter despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts, and it is likely impossible to ever do so.

I think the table fairly summarizes the differences. I have still yet to see any Biblical argument against E=mc2. The only controversial application of E=mc2 is in nuclear energy and atomic bombs. While the Ten Commandments teach that "Thou shall not kill" and dropping two atomic bombs on Japan caused horrific suffering, most conservatives and Christians believe that the war was shortened and many lives were saved. They would say that the discovery of nuclear technology just in time was God inspired. If Germany or Russia developed the bomb before the United States, the world would be a dictatorship by now. When Einstein approach FDR about starting a Manhattan Project, FDR could have said that the idea was "liberal claptrap" and refused to devote scarce resources to building atomic bombs. Instead, he authorized a massive expedited program. Most conservatives are glad that he did, and have supported nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants ever since.

The theory of special relativity is different from general relativity. E=mc2 is a part of special relativity but is worth its own separate article. Whatever feelings Andy (or anyone else) has about general relativity should be kept out of this article. Thanks, Wschact 08:13, 11 February 2013 (EST)

Is there even a single accomplished physicist who claims that E=mc2 is true, and explains why?--Andy Schlafly 12:31, 11 February 2013 (EST)

Well you could start with this book by Professors Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. RobertE 12:36, 11 February 2013 (EST)

Perhaps Mr. Schlafly would be comfortable with the original interpretation (which I'll write slightly differently to make my point):

which states only that a system's mass will change by a small amount when it releases or absorbs energy. It's still E=mc2; the difference is the definition of m and E. For example, it describes the rather difficult-to-ignore fact that a 4He nucleus weighs less than the two deuterons from which it was formed. This concept is easier to prove than the more general statement of mass-energy equivalence. Spielman 13:06, 11 February 2013 (EST)

Is there even a single accomplished physicist who claims that E=mc2 is true, and explains why? - Andrew Schlafly, you could start with Richard Feynman's Lectures on Physics, Book 1, 15-9 "Equivalence of mass and energy", which closes with the words

“

This theory of equivalence of mass and energy has been beautifully verified by experiments in which matter is annihilated - converted totally to energy: An electron and a positron come together at rest, each with a rest mass . When they come together they disintegrate and two gamma rays emerge, each with the measured energy of . This experiment furnishes a direct determination of the energy associated with the existence of the rest mass of a particle

”

—Richard Feynman

But you can take any textbook covering the special theory of relativity... --AugustO 13:43, 11 February 2013 (EST)

too many reversions needed to include key statements; can suggest edits on talk page

Very well: I suggest that this version is restored: revision 1034198. Reason: it has been shown above that the reversions done by Andrew Schlafly are unscientific. --AugustO 22:33, 11 February 2013 (EST)

Give it a rest. For your sake as well as everyone else. --DamianJohn 22:48, 11 February 2013 (EST)

What good would this do for this article? --AugustO 22:57, 11 February 2013 (EST)

None whatsoever. But then your complaining about it won't do anything either. Besides, no-one who wants to read about theoretical physics will read this article for its content. (Though they may find other reasons to look at it). --DamianJohn 23:00, 11 February 2013 (EST)

No, those who know something about physics just will have a good laugh. The problem are the readers who don't know much yet. It is probably the most famous formula in physics, so pupils may read this article: Can you imagine a pupil using this material for a home-work? --AugustO 23:05, 11 February 2013 (EST)

Any pupil that used this for homework would get an F, obviously. I wouldn't worry about young kids using this page. This formula is not used in school, and anyone who has any need to use it at university would not come here. The main point though is that Andy has made it perfectly clear that there will be no changes to the article and that is the end of it. You quoted the Anderson story of the Emperor's new clothes. Allow me to quote a lesson from the Pied Piper of Hamelin: "He who pays the piper calls the tune". --DamianJohn 23:27, 11 February 2013 (EST)

That is just not how a meritocracy works... --AugustO 02:36, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Your might makes right approach isn't becoming for the article on E=mc²! You are reminding me of the eponymous character in Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes", only that in this version everyone from the very beginning is telling the emperor that he is naked, but he insists on parading through the streets nonetheless!

You are asking question after question, but you are ignoring the answers, you don't answer substantial questions yourself and you failed to show that you know the mathematics or physics involved. You are acting like a lawyer in a room of scientists, following the old saying:

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

You are pounding the table a lot! --AugustO 23:31, 11 February 2013 (EST)

What is our goal? If everyone can show some diplomacy we can have a win-win situation. I know one editor here wants to score "points" against what he views as the liberal scientific establishment. I am unclear as to why the E=mc² article is an appropriate place for this. The downside to the article in its current form is that it is widely ridiculed and undercuts CP's credibility regarding many well-written articles. I think that AugustO had a better approach. He included some of the religious views as a separate paragraph, but also had a paragraph that said that E=mc² fits the experimental data. Now that the article has been protected from editing, I would be interested in hearing how Andy proposes to develop a new version that has less opinion and more valuable information. Thanks, Wschact 23:49, 11 February 2013 (EST)

A bit of friendly advice AugustO... You know how a certain editor on CP answers every instance of comment or criticism with a debate challenge over the 15 questions nobody cares about? Well, I'm sorry to say, you're starting to sound like that with the whole #A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton thing. Andy's never going to answer your (or anyone else's) question on this topic. Andy doesn't know what he's talking about. Andy also knows, that the entire internet knows, that Andy doesn't know what he's talking about. Yet, it hasn't deterred him in the least. Have you ever stopped and asked yourself why that is so? --DonnyC 23:58, 11 February 2013 (EST)

Proposed solution: (1) Andy unprotects the article and allows AugustO to edit it without Andy's further reverting. (2) We include a "See also" section at the bottom of the article that links to one or more debate pages. The debate pages could cover why Conservatives favor a nuclear arsenal and the peaceful use of nuclear energy to make electricity while liberals do not. (3) Whatever reservations Andy has about the tensions between the Bible and the general theory of relativity is confined just to the General theory of relativity article and not spread to unrelated physics articles. This would allow everyone to get what they want. If someone on the Internet reads about CP and decides to visit the E=mc² article to see for himself, he will see that the criticisms are false. The E=mc² article will be accurate, and the concerns about general relativity will be expressed in the relevant place. How about it? Wschact 05:32, 12 February 2013 (EST)

@Wschact - You seem to gravitate towards solutions that would require Andy to relinquish editorial control over his own blog encyclopedia. Most of us know that's never going to happen. Your modest proposal amounts to "Let's lock Andy in his playpen so people will take CP seriously again". Good luck with that. --DonnyC 20:22, 12 February 2013 (EST)

"Conservapedia - where intelligence goes to die"

When I discussed the translation of ἰδοὺ in the Conservapedia Bible Project, I was the first time confronted with an absolute inadequate stile of argument: instead of scholarly sources, spurious claims on google counts were made, statements were made out of thin air, and the subject was kicked down the road by announcing answers which never came. In the end, Andrew Schlafly just stopped addressing the topic.

I observe something similar with the article on E=mc² - only that the points made are even worse: The liberal media and professors also insist that Hugo Chavez is alive and recovering. That makes E=mc² wrong how? Andrew Schlafly hasn't shown the slightest understanding of the mathematics or physics involved, and missed every opportunity to do so.

The article has become detrimental to Conservapedia: it is a monument of Andrew Schlafly's ignorance on this matter. If we (all the other editors interested in this subject) aren't allowed to align this article with reality, the next best thing would be to delete it. --AugustO 02:13, 13 February 2013 (EST)

If the people who check out the criticisms find a correct article, CP will gain credibility. But if they find that the article was deleted, they will be left to their own imaginations as to why the article was pulled. Wschact 02:20, 13 February 2013 (EST)

New consensus

Does anyone object to AugustO's version? It acknowledges the "controversy" but also states the facts. Thanks, Wschact 08:44, 15 February 2013 (EST)

Since the page has been unlocked and nobody objected, why don't you edit it to reflect the new consensus? Wschact 18:49, 17 February 2013 (EST)

I have a problem with the wording of "The formula E=mc² has little relevance to situations where mass is not converted into energy such as chemical reactions or electrostatic interactions." (I believe this is part of "AugustO's version" but correct me otherwise.) The theory of relativity doesn't classify some types of reactions as "mass is not converted to energy". It says that whenever there is a change in energy, there is a corresponding change in mass. It doesn't matter if it's two deuterons sticking together to form a 4He nucleus, or two refrigerator magnets sticking together. Yes, the mass change is immeasurably small for non-nuclear reactions, but the formula still holds. Spielman 00:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)

Of course, you are correct that E=mc2 applies to any change in mass. We need to address Andy's very interesting argument as to what happens when a person drinks a glass of water. To my knowledge, drinking a glass of water does not change from the prior state where the person is just holding a glass of water. In general, in most common day-to-day experiences (except for basking in the warmth of the Sun), any change in mass is so small that the energy released by everyday chemical reactions exceeds the energy released by converting mass into energy. Does Spielman have an alternative wording, or should we stick with the current "liberal claptrap" formulation? Thanks, Wschact 23:48, 22 February 2013 (EST)

I hadn't realized that the page wasn't protected any longer. Now I performed the edit "to reflect the new consensus".

E=mc² seems to be applicable to any situation - though it is only derived for special cases. Not only can mass be transformed to energy, energy itself shows the characteristics of mass, best demonstrated by photons in a gravitational field.

We can only calculate but not measure the difference of mass before and after a TNT explosion - or the detonation of an atomic bomb: the mass differences are so tiny while the reactions are so powerful. But I don't think that this is a problem, we just have to look for more suitable examples. The same is true for quantum mechanics: we can apply the uncertainty principle to a speeding car, but it will have no practical consequences...

Dear Gryfin, it doesn't matter that the units are arbitrary - as long as they are used consistently: in the MKS system, you have on the right hand side meters, kilogram and seconds, and on the left hand side Joule, an unit which is derived from meters, kilogram and seconds:

But you can use any other system - as long as the unit for force is derived as [Force] = [mass] × [length] / [time]² and therefore, the unit of work is [Work] = [Force] × [length] = [mass] × [length]² / [time]² (here, [entity] indicates the unit used to measure the entity).

Only if you violate this consistency, you have to introduce conversion factors - which can be easily derived: most (American) introductory textbooks on physics talk about such necessary conversions on the first pages.

Censorship is not the way of the future

Andrew Schlafly, as a teacher you should know that correcting mistakes is not a form a censorship! Do I really have to remind you of the first Commandment of Conservapedia:

Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Your edits to the article are neither true not verifiable, as you have demonstrated here on the talk page: you have never given a cconvincing mathematical or physical argument for you position. May I remind you of #A few questions for Aschlafly regarding the experiment of Cockcroft¹ and Walton? Those are not the only questions you have dodged - every time a discussion on this talk-page isn't about politics, but hard science, you chose to ignore it! Frankly, I came to the conclusion that you are not able to answer such basic questions on physics - and therefore, you shouldn't edit the article. --AugustO 04:27, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Yikes AugustO, enough is enough surely. You have to know by now that the article will never change and yet you keep on and on. Rest assured that virtually everyone except Andy agrees with you and let that be enough. --DamianJohn 04:44, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, you undid my edit to E=mc², claiming that you were restoring information. But even you must have seen that the restored section titled E=mc2Doesn’t Compute is utter nonsense. It states:

E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute because the quantities assigned to units of measurement (seconds, kilometres and kilograms), were randomly chosen by humans and thus cannot validate the tangible energy of a given mass designed in nature. Because random values cannot validate the tangible, the result of E=mc2 is abstract and so meaningless. E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute by Grey:

The reasoning behind this thought is very poor (see here), and the whole section is an attempt on link-farming.

As for you original contributions: I came to the conviction that you don't defend them at the talk-page as they cannot be substantiated in any way. So they only resort (instead of arguing their physical or mathematical merits) is to crowbar them into the article via your edit war - a war you'll win not by having the better arguments, but by abusing your powers. In my opinion that is very sad... --AugustO 14:37, 28 February 2013 (EST)

This page continues to be visited by the public, and it draws traffic from websites that uses the page to ridicule Conservapedia as a whole. I think the best approach is to fix the E=mc2 article and move the criticism of the theory of general relativity to a less visible and more appropriate page. I understand that Andy has concerns about general relativity, but they do not belong on this page. Thanks, Wschact 08:06, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Choosing ignorance over knowledge

Andrew Schlafly, you haven't answered to any suggestion made to Talk:E=mc² since Feb 11, 2013. Your only action is to revert edits made to E=mc². Your behavior is disappointing, you don't defend your ideas, you conserve the current state of the article just by fiat, thereby cementing the appearance of ignorance and idiocy which was summarized in the net under Conservapedia - where intelligence goes to die.

Ignoring those who want to improve the article and refusing to discuss your ideas is such a cowardly move that I never expected it from you: you are reminding me of a toddler who hides under his blanket, waiting for reality to go away...

This tactic may even work in the short range: your critics may get frustrated, editors like I become disillusioned and will edit less and less, someone else will say something even more stupid somewhere in the net and will divert the attention from this article, etc. But unfortunately for you, reality is there to stay...